GAO Report from B-2933446

B-293344.6 Nov 04, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Security Consultants Group, Inc. (SCG) requests that our Office recommend reimbursement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of SCG's costs of filing and pursuing various protests and of defending against a DHS request for reconsideration of our decision in Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-293344.2, Mar.19, 2004, 2004 CPD 53. We grant the request in part and deny it in part. View Decision B-293344.6, Security Consultants Group, Inc.--Costs, November 4, 2004 Decision Matter of: Security Consultants Group, Inc.--Costs File: B-293344.6 Date: November 4, 2004 Stephen M. Ryan, Esq., and Holly A. Roth, Esq., Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, for the protester. Aaron T. Marshall, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Government Accountability Office will not recommend reimbursement of protester's costs of submitting proposals and challenging solicitation terms where, prior to submission of agency report, agency took corrective action canceling the solicitations and reinstating protester's contract. 2. Government Accountability Office recommends reimbursement of the costs of defending against agency's request for reconsideration where protester was required to incur additional expense in responding to request and record shows request, although ultimately withdrawn, failed to state a valid basis for reconsideration. DECISION Security Consultants Group, Inc. (SCG) requests that our Office recommend reimbursement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of SCG's costs of filing and pursuing various protests and of defending against a DHS request for reconsideration of our decision in Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-293344.2, Mar.19, 2004, 2004 CPD 53. We grant the request in part and deny it in part. The task order--for security guard services in Oklahoma--was initially awarded to SCG, under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07P-03-FCD-0131, based on the agency's determination that its proposal represented the "best value" to the government. Southwestern Security Services, Inc. (SSSI) protested to our Office, challenging the evaluation of its proposal and the award decision; we ultimately dismissed that protest for failure to state a valid basis of protest (B293344, Dec. 2, 2003). In reviewing the contract record, the agency realized that the request for proposals had not disclosed the relative weights of the three technical factors. While this indicated to offerors that the factors would be equally weighted, see Maryland Office Relocators , B291092, Nov. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD 198 at 5, the evaluation plan--and the actual evaluation--had assigned the past performance factor a weight of 60percent, and the other factors 20 percent each. Although SSSI's protest had been dismissed, the agency decided to take corrective action by amending the RFP to set forth the factors' relative weights and providing the offerors an opportunity to revise their technical and price proposals. The agency subsequently modified the task order, effectively terminating SCG's contract. In its protest, SCG asserted that the agency's corrective action was unwarranted because none of the offerors was prejudiced by the RFP's defect and that, since its contract price had been disclosed, it would be at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the reopened competition. While we found that the agency had correctly determined that there was a deficiency in the RFP, we concluded--based on the individual factor scores of the four top-scored offerors, including SCG--that none of the offerors was misled by the deficiency. Because the record did not establish a reasonable possibility of prejudice to any of the offerors, and given the compromise of SCG's competitive position by disclosure of its price, we held that there was no benefit to the procurement system that would justify reopening the competition. Accordingly, we sustained the protest and recommended reinstatement of SCG's contract. Subsequently, DHS determined that there were ambiguities in its evaluation process and changes to its requirements that necessitated issuing a new solicitation. Thus, instead of reinstating SCG's task order contract in accordance with our recommendation, DHS issued three separate solicitations (GS-07P-04-FCD-0007, GS07P-04-FCD-0008, and GS-07P-04-FCD-0009) covering the same security guard services encompassed by SCG's contract to obtain these services on an interim basis while it conducted the revised procurement. SCG submitted proposals for all three and protested the solicitations' terms. Prior to the due date for the agency's report, DHS took corrective action by canceling the new solicitations and modifying existing contracts with SCG and SSSI to meet its requirements.